27 17 Human Rights] is valid not only for the information or ideas that are favorably received or considered inoffensive or indifferent, but also for those that shock, concern or offend the State or any sector of the population. Such are the requirements of pluralism, tolerance and the spirit of openness, without which no ‘democratic society’ can exist. This means that any formality, condition, restriction or sanction imposed in that respect, should be proportionate to the legitimate end sought. Also, those who exercise their freedom of expression assume ‘obligations and responsibilities’, the scope of which depends on the 18 context and the technical procedure used. 70. It is important to mention that Article 13(4) of the Convention establishes an exception to prior censorship, since it allows it in the case of public entertainment, but only in order to regulate access for the moral protection of children and adolescents. In all other cases, any preventive measure implies the impairment of freedom of thought and expression. 71. In the instant case, it has been proved that, in Chile, there is a system of prior censorship for the exhibition and publicity of cinematographic films and that, in principle, the Cinematographic Classification Council prohibited exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ” and, reclassifying it, permitted it to be exhibited to persons over 18 years of age (supra para. 60 a, c and d). Subsequently, the Court of Appeal of Santiago decided to annul the November 1996 decision of the Cinematographic Classification Council, owing to a remedy for protection filed by Sergio García Valdés, Vicente Torres Irarrázabal, Francisco Javier Donoso Barriga, Matías Pérez Cruz, Jorge Reyes Zapata, Cristian Heerwagen Guzmán and Joel González Castillo, “for and in the name of [°] Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and themselves”; a decision that was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Therefore, this Court considers that the prohibition of the exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ” constitutes prior censorship in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. 72. This Court understands that the international responsibility of the State may be engaged by acts or omissions of any power or organ of the State, whatsoever its rank, that violate the American Convention. That is, any act or omission that may be attributed to the State, in violation of the norms of international human rights law engages the international responsibility of the State. In this case, it was engaged because article 19(12) of the Constitution establishes prior censorship of 17 This article establishes that: 2. The exercise of these freedoms, which entail rights and responsibilities, may be subject to certain formalities, conditions, restrictions or sanctions, established by law, which constitute necessary measures, in a democratic society, for national security, territorial integrity or public security, defense of order and prevention of crime, protection of health or morals, protection of the reputation or the rights of third parties, in order to prevent the dissemination of confidential information or to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the Judiciary. 18 cf. Eur. Court H.R., Handyside case, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A No. 24, para. 49; Eur. Court H.R., The Sunday Times case, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, paras. 59 and 65; Eur. Court H.R., Barthold judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, para. 55; Eur. Court H.R., Lingens judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, para. 41; Eur. Court H.R Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, para. 33; and Eur. Court HR, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A no. 295-A, para. 49.